The Electoral College, a cornerstone of American democracy, has come under scrutiny in recent years. Tim Walz, the Governor of Minnesota, has joined the growing chorus of voices calling for its abolition. This debate has gained momentum following several presidential elections where the winner of the national popular vote did not secure the presidency, sparking discussions about the fairness and effectiveness of the current system.
Critics argue that the Electoral College has an impact on the democratic process, giving disproportionate weight to swing states like Pennsylvania while diminishing the influence of populous states such as California. Supporters, however, contend that it protects the interests of smaller states and maintains the federal character of the nation. This article delves into the reasons behind Walz’s stance, examines the history and function of the Electoral College, and explores the potential consequences of moving to a national popular vote system.
The Electoral College: An Outdated System
Origins of the Electoral College
The Electoral College, a cornerstone of American democracy, has its roots in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It was born out of a compromise between delegates who favored a direct popular vote and those who wanted Congress to select the president. The framers settled on this system as a middle ground, entrusting state legislatures with the power to appoint electors. This compromise aimed to balance the interests of large and small states, while also addressing concerns about the electorate’s ability to make informed decisions.
How it works
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, mirroring the total number of representatives and senators in Congress. Each state receives electoral votes equal to its congressional delegation, with a minimum of three votes for the smallest states. In most states, the candidate who wins the popular vote receives all of that state’s electoral votes, a system known as “winner-take-all.” To secure the presidency, a candidate must garner a majority of 270 electoral votes, regardless of the national popular vote outcome.
Criticisms of the current system
Critics argue that the Electoral College has become an outdated and problematic system in modern America. One major concern is the potential for a candidate to win the presidency without securing the national popular vote, as seen in recent elections. This discrepancy between the popular vote and Electoral College results has led to questions about the fairness and representativeness of the system.
Another criticism is the disproportionate weight given to smaller states. For example, Wyoming has about 192,000 people per electoral vote, while Texas has approximately 730,000 people per electoral vote. This imbalance means that voters in less populous states have more influence in presidential elections than those in larger states like California.
The winner-take-all system used by most states also comes under fire. It can lead to the marginalization of minority party voters within a state and encourages candidates to focus their campaigns on a handful of competitive “swing states” like Pennsylvania, rather than engaging with voters across the entire country.
Furthermore, the Electoral College system has been criticized for its potential to amplify the effects of voter suppression and gerrymandering. In closely contested states, even small changes in voter turnout or district boundaries can have a significant impact on the allocation of electoral votes.
Recent Elections and Popular Vote Discrepancies
2000 Election: Bush vs. Gore
The 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore stands as a pivotal moment in American electoral history. The race was extraordinarily close, with the outcome hinging on Florida’s 25 electoral votes. After a contentious recount process, Bush was declared the winner in Florida by a margin of just 537 votes. This narrow victory gave Bush 271 electoral votes, one more than the 270 required to win the presidency. However, Gore won the national popular vote by 543,895 votes, marking the first time since 1888 that a candidate had won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.
The election’s aftermath was marked by legal battles and controversy. The dispute over Florida’s votes led to a Supreme Court case, Bush v. Gore, which ultimately halted the recount process and effectively decided the election in Bush’s favor. This decision remains a subject of debate and has had lasting implications for American politics and public perception of the Electoral College system.
2016 Election: Trump vs. Clinton
The 2016 election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton echoed some of the controversies of 2000, but with an even wider gap between the popular vote and Electoral College results. Clinton received approximately 2.9 million more votes nationwide, a margin of 2.1% of the total cast. However, Trump secured a victory in the Electoral College, winning 30 states with 306 pledged electors out of 538.
Trump’s victory was particularly notable for his success in traditionally Democratic strongholds. He won the perennial swing states of Florida, Iowa, and Ohio, and also flipped the “blue wall” states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These states had been reliably Democratic in presidential elections since the 1990s, and their shift was crucial to Trump’s Electoral College win.
Impact on voter perception
The discrepancies between the popular vote and Electoral College results in these elections have had a significant impact on voter perception and trust in the electoral system. Many Americans, particularly those who supported the popular vote winners, have questioned the fairness and representativeness of the Electoral College system.
These elections have also intensified debates about electoral reform, with some calling for the abolition of the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote system. Critics argue that the current system gives disproportionate weight to swing states like Pennsylvania while diminishing the influence of populous states such as California. Supporters of the Electoral College, however, contend that it protects the interests of smaller states and maintains the federal character of the nation.
The impact of these elections on voter turnout and engagement is also noteworthy. In the 2016 election, for instance, about four-in-ten Americans who were eligible to vote did not do so. This high rate of non-voting, combined with the Electoral College discrepancy, has led to increased scrutiny of the system and calls for reform from politicians like Tim Walz.
Arguments for Abolishing the Electoral College
One person, one vote principle
Governor Tim Walz and other proponents of abolishing the Electoral College argue that the current system violates the fundamental democratic principle of “one person, one vote.” They contend that the Electoral College gives disproportionate weight to smaller states, effectively making some votes more valuable than others. For instance, each Wyoming elector represents about 192,284 people, while each California elector represents approximately 732,189 people. This disparity means that voters in less populous states have more influence in presidential elections than those in larger states like California.
Advocates for reform argue that a national popular vote would ensure that every citizen’s vote carries equal weight, regardless of their state of residence. This change would align presidential elections with the democratic values that prevail in all other American elections, from local councils to senatorial races.
Increased voter turnout
Supporters of abolishing the Electoral College, including Tim Walz, believe that a national popular vote system would lead to increased voter participation. The current system creates “battleground” or “swing” states, where campaigns focus their efforts, while largely ignoring states considered safe for one party or the other. This phenomenon can lead to voter apathy in non-competitive states.
Data suggests that battleground states tend to have higher turnout rates. In the 2020 election, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania – key battleground states – had an average voter turnout of 74%, compared to the national average of 67%. Proponents argue that a national popular vote would encourage campaigns to engage with voters across the entire country, potentially boosting turnout nationwide to levels seen in battleground states.
Focus on national issues
Another argument for abolishing the Electoral College is that it would encourage candidates to focus on national issues rather than state-specific concerns. Under the current system, presidential hopefuls often tailor their campaigns and policy promises to win key swing states like Pennsylvania. This approach can lead to the neglect of issues that may be important to the nation as a whole but less relevant in battleground states.
Advocates argue that a national popular vote would compel candidates to address concerns that resonate with the broader American populace. This shift could lead to more comprehensive policy discussions and potentially better representation of diverse interests across the country. Additionally, it would eliminate the phenomenon of candidates spending a disproportionate amount of time in a handful of swing states while ignoring others.
Challenges and Potential Solutions
Constitutional amendment process
Abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, a process that poses significant challenges. To amend the Constitution, a proposal must receive approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures. This high threshold makes it extremely difficult to achieve the necessary consensus for such a fundamental change to the electoral system.
Despite these obstacles, there have been numerous attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College throughout U.S. history. In fact, over the past two centuries, more than 700 proposals have been introduced to either eradicate or significantly modify the Electoral College. In 1934, Congress came close to abolishing the system, falling just two Senate votes short of passage. More recently, in 1979, another Senate vote to establish a direct popular vote failed by only three votes.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
An alternative approach to Electoral College reform is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). This agreement among states aims to ensure that the candidate who wins the national popular vote becomes president, effectively bypassing the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment. Under this compact, participating states pledge to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome within their own borders.
As of April 2023, 15 states and Washington, D.C., have passed legislation to join the NPVIC, representing 196 electoral votes. However, the compact faces several challenges. It requires additional states to join to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold needed to take effect. Moreover, the compact may face constitutional challenges, as some argue it would require congressional approval under the Constitution’s Compact Clause.
Potential impacts on campaigning
Proponents of Electoral College reform, including Tim Walz, argue that the current system leads to disproportionate campaign focus on a small number of swing states. In the 2016 election, for example, two-thirds of general election campaign events were concentrated in just six states: Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan. This concentration of campaign efforts leaves voters in non-competitive states feeling politically irrelevant.
A shift to a national popular vote system could significantly alter campaign strategies. Candidates would likely broaden their focus to include populous states like California, New York, and Texas, which are currently often ignored due to their predictable partisan leanings. This change could potentially increase voter turnout and engagement across the country, as every vote would carry equal weight in determining the outcome of the election.
However, critics argue that such a change might lead to campaigns focusing primarily on major population centers, potentially neglecting rural areas and smaller states. This concern highlights the ongoing debate about balancing representation between urban and rural interests in the American political system.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding the Electoral College has sparked significant discussion about the future of American democracy. Tim Walz’s call to abolish this system has an impact on the ongoing conversation about fairness and representation in presidential elections. The discrepancies between popular vote and Electoral College results in recent elections have led many to question the current system’s effectiveness in reflecting the will of the people.
Looking ahead, the path to reform faces substantial hurdles, including the need for a constitutional amendment or widespread adoption of alternatives like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Regardless of the outcome, this debate encourages Americans to reflect on the foundations of their democracy and consider how best to ensure every vote carries equal weight. As the nation evolves, so too must its electoral processes to uphold the principles of fair representation and democratic participation.
